Steven Conway
2. Do you accept the conclusion of the Canadian Medical Association that air pollution such as currently exists in Durham Region is an immediate health hazard which is contributing to reduced lifespan and quality of life. Read conclusions from the CMA report - No Breathing Room .
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
3. Do you agree that any exposure to carcinogenic substances should be avoided at all costs?
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
Comments: We should continue to push for safe (or at least safer) alternatives to avoid exposure to toxins in the workplace, home and community.
4. Do you accept that governments should apply the ‘precautionary principle’. i.e. governments should severely restrict any initiatives where there is a likelihood of waste discharges, emissions or other side-effects where the harmful effects are either unknown or poorly understood?
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
Comments: I stood in front of Clarington Council and Regional Council and cited the 'precautionary principle' as one of the many reasons for not building the EFW.
5. Do you accept that pollution is cumulative and that the harmful potential of all developments (both new and existing) needs to be evaluated in the context of the environment as a whole rather than each development individually?
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
6. Would you support a local by-law to extend the provincial ban on cosmetic pesticide use to include golf courses and other recreational properties not currently included?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
7. As a councillor, would you seek restrictions on any new developments (industrial, commercial, residential, etc.) which do not meet exceptional standards for air and water pollution abatement?
Severe restrictions
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Loosen existing restrictions
Comments: I find it hard to choose 'severe restrictions' on this one. I do believe in pressing for exceptional standards. We need to bring in a strong industrial/commercial base to Clarington, however, not at the expense of our health and the health of our children. Restrictions might vary from industry to industry, and I would like to give myself some room to form an educated conclusion case by case.
8. Would you favour high density residential or mixed development at transportation hubs (particularly GO stations) in order to maximize the population near these hubs and reduce the use of private cars?
Strongly Favour
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
9. In order to mitigate the detrimental affects of urban sprawl (servicing costs, transit costs, etc.) would you support a general increase in zoning densities in order to create more compact communities? This is in line with policies of the provincial government.
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
10. As a councillor, would you support the protection of Class 1 farmland from further urban development except in exceptional circumstances?
Highest Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Crazy Idea
Comments: I always promote 'Buy Local' initiatives. If we do not support our farmers, we will lose that food chain. We try to practice the '100 mile meal' innitiative as well.
11. As a councillor, would you support changes to zoning regulations to require buffer zones around environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. Second Marsh) to protect them from potentially high impact developments (such as the proposed ethanol plant)? Only minimal impact development would be allowed within these buffer zones.
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
12. Would you support a tree protection by-law in which a permit would be required to cut any mature tree (even on private or development land) and, that even when permitted, replacement trees would have to be planted or fees paid to a municipal environmental fund in compensation? For information on Toronto's by-law, click here .
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
13. Would you advocate the expansion of local transit routes and their frequency, accompanied by promotions to encourage people to leave their cars at home?
Highest Priority
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
No expansion required
Comments: Car pooling should be prioritized where transit cannot be maximized. I see some pretty empty buses driving through Clarington. I agree that in order for transit work here, ridership must increase before we can ask for higher frequency runs too.
14. Would you support an acquisition policy which required all newly purchased municipal service vehicles to be 'green', to the extent that such vehicles are available?
Zero emissions
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: Municipal vehicles should be replaced with the greenest replacements possible. Having said that, my support of the 'Buy Local' innitiative extends to the largest private employer in the region - General Motors.
15. Would you support a policy which required all companies with long term contracts to the municipality (e.g. garbage & electrical services) to use 'green' vehicles where such vehicles are available?
Zero emissions
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: As above, where possible, supporting the domestic automotive companies protects local jobs, which in turn provides the taxes for our infrastructure, supports local businesses and charitable organizations such as the United Way.
16. Car idling creates pollution and greenhouse gases and also costs drivers money in fuel and wear and tear to their engines. As a councillor, would you support a ban on idling for longer than a few minutes as they have done in Toronto and other GTA communities? See Natural Resources Canada 'Idle-Free Zone' .
High Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Crazy Idea
Comments: We must also address the lineups at drive-through windows as an idling problem.
17. Drive-throughs create traffic congestion, encourage idling and result in reduced physical activity. As a councillor, would you support restrictions on drive-throughs?
Ban Drive-throughs
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
No restrictions
Comments: Oops. I didn't see this question as I answered the last one! I am not sure if banning drive-throughs is the answer. Some people might actually drive further looking for a less busy location, and therefore waste more energy that way. Having said that, Other some countries don't seem to have a reliance on drive-throughs like our society seems to have.
18. Do you support the completion of Hwy 407 east to Hwy 35/115 as a divided, controlled-access highway?
As Quickly as Possible
9
8
7 6
5
4
3
2
Never
Comments: I can see the positive spin-offs. Of course the biggest negative is the paving over of miles of good fertile land, whether it be farmland forest, or wetland.
19. The environmental imperative strongly indicates that we need to reduce our reliance on private vehicles, and to this end we need to question all major road construction projects. As an alternative to the current design of the 407, would you support downgrading the 407 extension to 'as-needed' improvements to the existing road alignments, and widenings only as the specific need is demonstrated?
Strongly Support
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
20. Would you support an end to all regional & local planning for an airport in north Pickering and encourage the federal government to stop further demolitions and return the land to agricultural uses where still practical? Land over Landings website.
Return Airport Lands to Agriculture
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Build Airport Now
21. As a councillor, will you seek to stop the proposed EFW / garbage incinerator in Clarington?
Yes, Stop it
No, Build it
Undecided
Comments: As I said earlier, I am a vocal opponant to the 'EFW'. I am 100% against it, and have said so at both Local and Regional government levels.
22. The alternative to incineration and/or landfill is aggressive waste diversion - "Reduce, Reuse & Recycle". What level of diversion do you believe is feasible?
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Comments: I don't know if we can reach 100%, but we should push for 70 - 80%. If we get there, we can aim higher. I do know that our community must divert more. We need representatives who will push the higher levels of government to legislate over packaging and the use of only recyclable materials in packaging. Decreasing the amount of consumer waste entering the household will help us attain a higher level of diversion at the curb.
23. Given your answer to the previous question, when should we aim to achieve that diversion goal?
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Comments: We must act aggressively, to sit back and talk the talk isn't working. We must lead by example.
24. Would you support an initiative which required all public events on public property to be 'zero garbage' as they currently do in Markham? All materials at such events are required to be recycled and there are no 'garbage' containers. (See Markham's policy. )
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
25. Municipal councils are the owners of all our local power utilities (Whitby Hydro, Veridian, Oshawa Public Utilities). Would you be prepared to use that leverage to insist that these utilities be 'greener'?
Using more fuel efficient vehicles
High Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Accelerate the implementation of 'smart' metering
High Priority
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Assist with energy efficiency retrofits
High Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Provide incentives for local power generation (solar, wind)
High Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Insist that more green energy is available on the local grid
High Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
26. The vast majority of homes are heated by burning either gas or oil which creates significant greenhouse gases. In order to conserve energy and reduce global warming, municipalities could be encouraging the use of ground source and other high efficiency heat pumps by providing financing of the capital costs through the municipal lending authority, provided the savings more than covered the carrying costs. Residents would repay the loans on their individual tax bills from the savings on their heating bills. Would you support such an initiative?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
27. Governments are frequently faced with difficult choices between hard monetary costs and potential health and social costs. Please indicate how you would rate the relative importance of these on the scale below.
Hard Costs, Taxes
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Social & Health Concerns
Comments: Tough question. People complain about their taxes, probably more than anything else - unless they lose their job. We must look first at the well-being of our families and our communities. We must control spending but not by selling out the members of our community.
28. It is important to set goals. Would you support a general initiative to make your community the greenest in Ontario (or one of the greenest in Canada)?
Great idea
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Dumb Idea
29. The Environmental Assessment process for the Clarington EFW / Incinerator has been contentious. Rate the process from 10 (very good) to 1 (very poor).
EFW Process was Very Good
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Process was Bad
30. For future projects, would you insist on a more open, consultative and responsive approval process?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
31. Would you support an initiative to make the position of Regional Chair elected by voters?
Yes, by Direct Public Election
No, Continue as at Present (appointed by Regional Council)
Undecided / Don't Know
Some Other Option - Please Describe
32. Municipal elections generally have very low turnouts. There are many causes for this, but in an effort to spark greater interest and generate better funded campaigns, would you support tax credits for donations to municipal candidates as they do in Toronto and other communities? (See Toronto's rebate policy. )
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
33. Will you accept / refuse campaign donations (directly or indirectly) from developers (any business, or individual working for such a company, which is likely to be asking Council for permission to change any form of land designation.
Accept
Refuse
Other / Comments
Comments: A donation only says that the contributor supports the candidate as the best person for the job. There is no "quid pro quo" attachment, in my eyes. Councillors should vote for what they feel is right, not because they feel they owe someone a favour. I wouldn't want to receive a contribution from someone if they expected something in return.
34. Will you accept / refuse campaign donations (directly or indirectly) from any business or individual which has or is likely to be seeking contracts with the municipality.
Accept
Refuse
Other / Comments
Comments: I don't know how I would know that someone might 'indirectly' seek a contract from the municipality in the future. I would consider it a conflict of interest and seek legal advice from the municipal lawyer should I end up in such a situation. As above, I don't believe a donation requires the absolute support from the recipient either.
35. A common complaint about municipal elections is that there are too few opportunities for voters to meet and question candidates. Would you support subsidies to community groups who are willing to sponsor non-partisan all-candidates meetings - these subsidies would be used to rent halls and generate appropriate publicity?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6 5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: I am not sure that it is a good idea. All-candidates meetings are a great idea, but City Hall subsidizing them...
36. Would you support changes to the sign by-laws to severely limit both the number and size of election signs on public property (boulevards, etc.)? Signs on private property (with the owner’s permission) would be unaffected.
Ban signs on public property
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
No Restrictions
37. Should election signs be banned from garbage? In other words should they be required to be recycled?
Signs Must be Recycled
No Restrictions
Undecided / Don't know
Other - Please Specify
38. In the 1950s municipal elections were held every year. Politicians were responsive to citizens because they were never very far from the next election. Since then the terms for councillors have gradually increased, and in the last election, terms were extended to 4 years. The rationale is that politicians need time to get things done and some of these things might be unpopular ...but necessary. What do you think is the most appropriate term?
One Year
Two Years
Three Years
Four Years
Five Years
39. General Comments:
Steve Conway
Well done Steve, you have my support.